MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900141319 · doi:10.1186/s12889-018-6054-9

Predictors of cervical cancer screening among Kenyan women: results of a nested case-control study in a nationally representative survey

2018· article· en· W2900141319 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne Ng’ang’a, Mary Nyangasi, Nancy G Nkonge, Eunice Gathitu, Joseph Kibachio, Peter Gichangi, Richard G. Wamai, Catherine Kyobutungi

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAfrican Population and Health Research CenterInternational Development Research CentreAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineCervical cancerPublic healthBiostatisticsCancer screeningLogistic regressionCancerPopulationDemographyEnvironmental healthGerontologyGynecologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major public health concern in Kenya. It is the leading cause of cancer morbidity and mortality among women. Although screening is an effective prevention method, uptake is low among eligible women. Little is known about predictors of cervical cancer screening uptake. This study explored relationship between uptake of cervical cancer screening, socio-demographic, behavioral and biological risk factors. METHODS: Nested case-control study within STEPS survey, a population-based cross-sectional household survey conducted between April and June 2015.Cases were women who had undergone cervical cancer screening and controls were unscreened women. Study participants were women eligible for cervical cancer screening (30-49 years). Variables included socio-demographic; behavioral risk factors such as physical activity, tobacco and alcohol use diet and biological factors like diabetes and hypertension. Outcome of interest was cervical cancer screening. Data analysis was done using STATA version 14. Logistic regression model was used to assess relationship between cervical cancer screening and socio-demographic, behavioral and biological risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1180 women interviewed, 16.4% (n = 194) had been screened for cervical cancer. Of unscreened women (n = 986), 67.9% were aware of cervical cancer screening. Higher screening rates were observed in more educated women (25.2%), highest income quintile (29.6%) and living in urban areas (23%) than in women with no formal education (3.2%), poorest (3.6%) and living in rural areas (13.8%). Younger women (35-39) and those with low High-density lipoprotein (HDL) were less likely to be screened [OR = 0.56; 95% CI = (0.34, 0.93); p-value = 0.025] and [OR = 0.51; 95% CI = (0.29, 0.91); p = value 0.023] respectively. Self-employed women, those in the fourth wealth quintile, binge drinkers, high sugar consumption and insufficient physical activity were more likely to be screened [OR 2.55 (1.12, 5.81) p value 0.026], [OR 3.56 (1.37, 9.28) p value 0.009], [OR 5.94 (1.52, 23.15) p value 0.010], [OR 2.99 (1.51, 5.89) p value 0.002] and [OR 2.79 (1.37, 5.68) p value 0.005] respectively. CONCLUSION: Uptake of cervical cancer screening is low despite high awareness. Strategies to improve cervical cancer screening in Kenya should be implemented with messages targeting persons with both risky and non-risky lifestyles especially younger women with no formal education living in rural areas.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207